Liberty or Safety?

The main reason I spent 22 years of my life in military service was to defend our freedoms. But what I don't appreciate is a government taking drastic steps beyond the powers of the constitution to destroy our freedoms (even though I guess we can expect that from California, Chicago, and NY politics.)

Some people do advocate such drastic measures, perhaps as a means of erring on the side of caution. If that's the way to go, we should lower the speed limit to no more than 45 mph on the highways, and no more than 30 mph everywhere else. We should make alcoholic beverages illegal. We should have no more privacy so we can stop crimes before they happen. Maybe we should also make it illegal to have more than one-or-two kids and force abortions for those trying to have more. So many things we could do that make our country safer. But at what expense? In a perfect world, such power would be yielded appropriately. But in this world, it seldom is.

All of you probably have read Ben Franklin's famous (butchered, taken-out-of-context) quote: "Those who would give up Liberty for Security deserve neither." The more accurate quote presumably coming from Franklin was "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety", and the context I believe was taxing a particularly rich family to pay for safety on the frontier.

It applies here loosely because it feels like the same kind of thing: unfair, drastic measures forced on citizenry without representation and without constitutional regard. And it is especially egregious because other effective things could have been done first instead.

Let's recap my previous posts... Keeping information away from and misinforming the public has contributed to the spread. If the government wants to spend money on anything, why not masks? They are effective at preventing those who wear them from spreading the virus. What do they say instead?

They say masks don't help prevent the spread (a lie)... and buying them may create a shortage for healthcare workers. If they told us that covering our noses and mouths help prevents the spread, people would likely wear something on their face when they go out in public. Such things other than masks include the kind of clothing they wear in the desert to keep out dust.

What if instead, the drastic measures were to include funding makeshift factories to overproduce face masks and hand sanitizer? What if they instead funded manufacturing more tests? What if they instead included funding microbiology research to learn new practical ways to curtail viral proliferation - including something the medical profession has pretty much ignored: the impact of diet on immune responses?

Maybe also issue a temporary order for restaurants and other organizations and facilities to require facemasks and hand sanitation coming in the front door. Such would be within the purview of the constitution - and it might reduce the impact on the economy.

What do they do instead? Issue orders removing basic freedoms. You might say it was justified. My response is, not when other things could have been done. Do you know how to cook a live frog? You cook it in slow, unnoticeable increments. In this case, the proverbial frog is freedom.

Someone is going to die because they still believe in fundamental freedoms and they rebel against the order and were shot by police. And the death will not find justice. It's coming, and we'll perhaps be a little closer to a realistic version of The Hunger Games.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/illinois-governor-to-issue-lockdown-order-requiring-residents-shelter-in-place-starting-saturday-sources-say/ar-BB11trTM